Everything to do with phonetics. Please note: comments not signed with your genuine name may be removed.

Thursday, 1 October 2009

buttressing?

Some twenty or more years ago I invented the term “buttressing” to refer to the use of the strong form for an unaccented preposition with a pronoun complement, after the nucleus in sentences like

(1) I had a letter from him.aɪ ˈhæd ə ˈletə frɒm ɪm.

Compare

(2) I had a note from him.aɪ ˈhæd ə ˈnəʊt frəm ɪm.

The use of strong or weak form can go either way in both cases, but on the whole we tend to use a strong form (frɒm) in (1), a weak form (frəm) in (2). The more weak syllables intervene after the nucleus, the more likely a strong form.I used this terminology when I gave some lectures on English phonetics in Buenos Aires in 1992.Later I decided (or perhaps was persuaded by my colleagues) that it is not necessary to have a new term for this phenomenon: we can just call it “rhythmic strong form”. It complements “stranding” (What are you looking at?): the two principles together account for strong forms in unaccented syllables.

When I returned to Buenos Aires last month several people approached me to say how much they liked the term “buttressing”. Why had I abandoned it? Would I reinstate it?

I have a slight feeling of guilt at having invented, or at least popularized, rather a large number of new technical terms in English phonetics, and try to keep them in check. (For instance, I abandoned the Latinate “correption” in favour of the English “smoothing”.)

But perhaps I needn’t feel guilty after all._ _ _ _

From tomorrow I shall be travelling again, and this blog will be suspended. The next entry will be on Thursday 15 October.

@vp: I tried both sentences in my own American idiolect, and again in RP. Based on this completely unscientific experiment, I think you may be right - that the use of the strong vowel (though without any further lengthening) is a UK thing and not, for the most part, as US thing.

I'm not Amy, but (i) is indeed more likely (though not certain) to elicit the strong form of "for" from me. My intuition is that the consonant clusters "pr" and "nt" in "present" function like a speed bump, slowing me down enough to make the strong form a rhythmic possibility.

Yep, that's the idea.Even more likely with more weak-vowelled syllables intervening:Here's another memory for you.I'll bring the sandwiches for you. I've been labo(u)ring at it.cf.Here's a cake for you.I'll bring the rice for you.I'll work at it.

@ Spanish speakersCan anybody think of any rhythmically equivalent examples in Spanish?e.g. "¡ColGAD las \SÁbanas!DIje" would be similar to "I'll BRING the \SANDwiches FOR you".Also: \WORking AT it = ¡\GUARdias!DIje = \IRriTAting